PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

Overall, Obama is doing much better on international issues than domestic ones. Among eight issues on which Obama was rated in the new poll, Americans give the president the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs and the situations in Egypt and Afghanistan. The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.

And you find that 47% of those surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of Egypt. Versus the 27% who approve of his handling of the deficit and the 37% who approve of his handling of the economy.

What is amazing is just what a remarkably incompetent job Obama has done in even his best rated issue.

Obama’s foolish mishandling of Egypt began before most of the rest of the nation knew anything about it. The CIA said, “We warned of instability.” And they warned Obama that the Mubarak regime could fall last year. And like the kid who didn’t bother to start his term paper until the day after it was due, Obama did nothing.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.”

“Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I’m sure that sounds “largely secular” to any drooling imbecile you might happen to ask.

That said, if we put drooling imbecile’s in charge of our mainstream media, we’d probably see an improvement. A lot of the media have depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as though it were the Salvation Army.

Muslim Brotherhood, the banned opposition political outfit in Egypt, supports terrorism according to FBI Director Robert Muller. Muller made the statement during a Congressional hearing on Thursday where lawmakers said that the group is using peaceful protests in Egypt to grab power.

“Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” Muller said in response to a question at a hearing on “Worldwide Threats” by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Muller, who refrained to give any further information in an open session, said that the United States has no relationship with Muslim Brotherhood.

What else can we know about the Muslim Brotherhood?

the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today’s jihadist movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood were the prototypical terrorist organization, in the same way that the Italian Mafia was the prototypical criminal gang organization. I would submit that it has become rather like the Sinn Féin to the Irish Republican Army. It is the political and propaganda wing of the armed terrorist movement.

“Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

DNI James Clapper came by his genuine moral idiocy honestly; he caught it from his commander-in-chief.

That’s the craziest, most clueless and most incompetent thing of all about this story.

Mind you, Obama hasn’t given a damn that the Coptic Christians are excluded from participating in their government while he pushes for a role for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. All that matters is that the beloved Muslim Brotherhood be included. This is similar to Obama calling for a brand new mosque to be built near Ground Zero, while doing nothing to help rebuild an existing Greek Orthodox Christian church that got destroyed. Why doesn’t Obama’s inclusiveness always have a way of excluding Christianity and including Islam?

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Obama can either pat himself on the back or walk away from Egypt. As things go well, Obama was absolutely central to everything (e.g., Chris Matthews having another tingle go up his leg: “it took Obama to have this happen“); as things go poorly, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, Israel has to live next door to whatever happens. And they’re bitter over Obama’s betrayal of both a historic ally (and just what is the point of being a U.S. ally when Backstabber Hussein Obama will throw you under the bus the nanosecond it’s convenient for him to do so???) and of Israel itself.

The funniest thing of all – after listening to Obama’s speech on the situation in Egypt, in which he inserted himself by using his “this is the moment, this is the time” refrain – was this from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Also worth keeping in mind: cant find anyone in O admin who thinks whatever comes next will be better for U.S. interests than Mubarak was”

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

Anyone who has watched so much as five minutes of the completely out-of-control rioting and beatings in Egypt can only conclude that this woman and the administration she represents doesn’t have so much as the faintest inkling of a clue.

The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.

I mean, really, dude? You actually thought that was a good idea??? I mean, that’s like supporting a role for groups such as the Nazis in a “reformed” German government. That’s kind of like supporting the role of the Ku Klux Klan in a “reformed” Confederate government. And, if anything, the qualifier, “But only if they promise to behave” is even more breathtakingly stupid.

The ironic thing about that – in addition to how totally clueless Obama revealed himself to be – is how President Obama never once spoke of the “passion and dignity” of American Tea Party protestors as they engaged in countless peaceful protests across the USA. Nor has he ever YET bothered to hear their voices. It literally seems that to garner Obama’s approval, a crowd has to be a violent foreign Muslim mob.

I have said earlier, and repeat here, my Bible-based belief that – for all of Obama’s stunning incompetence and incoherence – I believe that Egypt somehow will ultimately not turn into a full-fledged member of the radical jihadist crazy-for-death Muslim nations that will launch a full-scale genocidal war against nuclear-armed Israel. That said, I am not giving Obama any credit whatsoever for the fact that Egypt will not degenerate into jihadist radicalism. That issue was settled back in 1979, when Anwar Sadat literally sacrificed his life for peace with Israel.

Obama has tried to represent himself as having a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment; but in reality it is far more like Jimmy Carter’s incredibly stupid act of taking Iran away from the pro-American Shah and giving it to the virulently anti-American Ayatollahs.

It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms. You simply cannot have both. If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.

If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.

Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy. Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”

Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:

“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”

Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.” And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com. And of course there are a million more where those came from.

We have a problem. We want the world to benefit from democracy. We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system. We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.

But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind. And we tolerate this why?

One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism. As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.” Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.” That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.

Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.” And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system. Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.

And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it. Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.

There’s more. One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life. And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.” Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.

And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends. That is exactly what the American political left says. And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.

And what is even more frightening is thatAmerica today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer. As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization(NWRO).”

Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another. As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator. Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.

It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism. But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy? You roll the dice and take your chances. And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies. Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.

Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic. A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam: You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny. It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer. Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism. Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam. And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.

If the crisis occurring now in Egypt had instead occurred during George Bush’s watch, you can rest assured that the entirety of the mainstream media would have been asking, “Why didn’t the administration know this was coming?” “How was this not a massive intelligence failure?” And they would have characterized the Egyptian crisis as a failure of American leadership.

Conservatives like me have taken the attitude, “Do Unto Obama What Liberals Did Unto Bush.” You find that the ideology out of power can drag down a president one bloody chunk of meat at a time. Which was precisely what liberals did to Bush for eight unrelenting years.

As a conservative blogwarrior, what I would ordinarily want to do is take an event like the building collapse of the Egyptian government, link it to Obama, and blame his failure of leadership. That’s what the liberals did on a daily basis to George Bush, and as much as the left decries the very tactic they developed and used to such advantage, it works.

And I CAN link this to Obama. It was OBAMA’S regime that has been secretly backing Egyptian rebels, who literally set this whole firestorm in motion. This support began during the period of transition, when Bush was on his way out and Obama was on his way in, and continued under Obama’s thumb. And the American response to the Egyptian crisis has been nothing short of a fiasco: Obama’s vice president Joe Biden said that Mubarak isn’t a dictator. Which means he should stay. But then Obama’s secretary of state Hillary Clinton says there needs to be an orderly transition of power, which means that he should go. And then Obama’s press secretary says that the U.S. isn’t taking sides, when in fact the U.S. is incoherently taking sides first one way and then the other, basically as the wind blows.

Right wingers basically have all the evidence they need to throw out the bomb that Obama has been working to undermine US ally Mubarak in order to enable the Muslim Brotherhood to take over strategically vital Egypt. And that he is even now undermining any coherent American effort to restore order.

And the thing about propaganda is that you can turn out to be completely wrong, but if people believe you at the time, you win, because those people turn against the leader(s) you’re seeking to undermine – and it’s hard to win them back. And if you throw up enough blame, some of it is bound to stick.

All that said…

While I’m a political conservative, I’m not JUST a political conservative. Unlike political liberals, who are secular humanists whose religion is big government – and for whom government is the only answer to the problems of man – politics is NOT the only solution to the world’s problems for me. I also have Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that He came to fulfill.

And what the Scriptures say are more important to me than my opinions about Obama or even my limited government conservative political ideology.

With that said, I will NOT play the game of the political ideologue, using the latest crisis to denounce the current administration’s mishandling and predicting doom as a result of the president’s incompetence.

I will try to state what the Scriptures say about a strategically incredibly important nation that is nearly as ancient as man himself.

And so I am going to say that, as a student of Scripture and of Bible prophecy, I believe that Egypt will ultimately turn out okay. Rather than point to the unrest in Egypt and denounce Obama for the horrors that will surely follow – as I would do if I were simply operating as a conservative ideologue and blogwarrior – I am stating my belief that Egypt won’t turn out like Iran.

Now why do I say that?

Because of the book of Ezekiel chapters 38-39.

Ezekiel 38 and 39 describes a list of seemingly obscure names of nations bearing their sixth century BC names. Scholars can trace those ancient names and pair them with peoples and nations of today. What we learn is that in the future, in the last days, a vast army of what are today Islamic countries led by Russia and Iran will launch a surprise attack against Israel. And that God Himself will divinely and supernaturally intervene on Israel’s behalf.

Two things are significant: 1) the names of the nations on the list. Why? Because except for Russia – a key ally to Islamic regimes – every nation on the list is today a Muslim nation with animosity toward Israel; and 2) the names of the nations that are not on the list.

Joel Rosenberg became famous understanding this. As just one example, Rosenberg wrote a “last days” novel. Because he understood that Iraq (ancient Babylon) was not mentioned as one of the nations that would join the Russian-Iran-led coalition to attack Israel, Rosenberg “killed off” Saddam Hussein – whom he rightly understood would have participated in such an invasion. And how did he do it? By having America take him out after a terrorist flew a plane into an American building. And he wrote this nine months prior to the 9/11 attack.

It should be noted that conspicuously absent from the list is Egypt and Iraq (typically referred to in Scripture as Babylon or Mesapotamia). This is noteworthy since Ezekiel was writing the prophecy in the City of Babylon, in the heart of Iraq. We would have to expect, then, that neither Egypt nor Iraq will participate. Egypt, of course, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Iraq is now so engrossed in its own internal struggles that it would be unlikely to join a coalition to destroy Israel in the next few years. We are, therefore, living in the first window in human history in which neither of these historic enemies of the Jewish people are likely to be involved in the next major Middle East war.

This isn’t the first article in which I make mention of Egypt and Iraq and their role in the future according to Bible prophecy, for the record.

Now, I don’t cite Joel Rosenberg because he’s a “prophet.” Nor would he want me to do so. Rather, I cite him because he has a rock-solid understanding of Bible prophecy and because he has concretely demonstrated that his understanding of the Bible makes him prescient of otherwise obscure and constantly-changing modern times events.

Prior to Anwar Sadat’s signing of a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 (for which he was murdered), Egypt had fought Israel during the 1948 war; it had fought Israel in 1956; it had fought Israel again in 1967; and it had fought Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

What is happening now in Egypt – with riots and violence and deaths and looting and vigilantes – is terrifying. But somehow Egypt will end up with a government that will continue to be at peace with Israel. Which means it won’t ultimately be controlled by terrorists or jihadist regimes. We can’t know what will happen in the very near term, but overall, the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood will not end up in control of Egypt. And up to this point, thank God, there has been a conspicuous absence of Israeli and American flag burnings in Egypt.

Frightening things are happening in the Middle East. Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria and Egypt are spiraling out of control as we speak. Iran is one the verge of having The Bomb, and the world will become a very different place after this terrorism-sponsoring rogue regime feels it can act with impunity. And the fact that Iran is Shiite will force many Sunni nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own in a terrifying arms race in the craziest place in the world. And, of course, North Korea has committed several acts of war against its South Korean counterpart.

Jesus said that in the last days there would be wars and rumors of wars. He described “birth pangs” in which each wave would be more painful than the last. And while there have ALWAYS been wars, what we would see would be a level above anything the past has witnessed. After two thousand years of relative peace, we had World War I, World War II, the Cold War (of which the Korean War and the Vietnam War were part), and now fighting that has at once gone to the “biblical world” (Iraq – Operations Desert Storm and then Desert Fox – as well as Afghanistan) even as it has spread to the rest of the world in an unprecedented way via terrorism.

And we aint seen nothin’ yet. Soon there will come the Antichrist, also called the beast, who will come promising peace and prosperity, and who will come to rule the world, but who will in reality turn into the devil incarnate. And those who are left on the earth will find war and ruin and death such as the world has never witnessed in all of its history.

It all sounds terrifying. And of course it IS terrifying. But I don’t have to be afraid.

What is God’s purpose for allowing such terrible events to befall mankind? Why does God permit the coming of the beast? Because mankind is in a stage in which it denies God and even claims that belief in God is creating all the problems in the world. This powerful global secular humanist movement says that mankind is on the verge of greatness and that if the intolerant Christians could only be removed, humanity could attain that greatness. And God will give them their chance. He will remove all those who believe in His Son, and give the world its chance to govern itself without Him. And what we will see instead of the Utopia these secularists have always described will be literal hell on earth.

And Jesus Christ will ultimately return to earth as King of kings and as Lord of lords just in time to prevent mankind from totally destroying itself as all the armies of the world gather at a place known as Armageddon.

It is THIS King of kings whose government I trust in; and no other.

The Book of Daniel says, “Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4). Knowledge has exploded as no other period in human history has ever seen, and yet we run to and fro in panic and uncertainty more than at any other time.

You don’t have to be afraid. There is a God who knows the end from the beginning. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own [or the expert’s] understanding, and rest assured that ultimately the government of the world will be upon the shoulders of the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

“In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a ‘cyber-emergency,’ which they didn’t define,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

“We think it’s a very bad idea … to put in legislation,” he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

“The current language is so unclear that we can’t be confident that the changes have actually been made,” he said.

The new legislation allows the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online — a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president “amorphous powers” over private users.

According to a report Monday at CNET News, the bill will be back on the Senate agenda in the new year. But a revision introduced into the bill in December would exempt the law from judicial oversight. According to critics, this change would open the law to politically-motivated abuse by any administration, no matter how narrowly the law is interpreted.

“The country we’re seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,” Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which represents online companies such as eBay and Yahoo, told CNET. “Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.”

“Judicial review is our main concern,” he added. “A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.”

Under the proposed law, the Department of Homeland Security would draw up a list of Internet “critical infrastructure” it deems vital to the proper functioning of the web and US economy. The president would then be granted the power to order some part of that critical infrastructure to be shut down, in case of a “national cyberemergency.”

While the bill does lay down what constitutes “critical infrastructure,” critics say it’s not clear what constitutes a “national cyberemergency.” Nor is it clear what other powers the president may exert, aside from shutting down parts of the web.

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Obama wants dictatorial power so that he can become a better dictator. And the only thing that is stopping him is a Constitution that Democrats constantly undermine and a finicky entity called “the people.” Democrats have already reinterpreted the Constitution into meaninglessness, and the will of the people?

It’s not going so well for him now, but we’re only one election away from tyranny.

I’ve said it more than once: a full third of Americans (the liberal third) would continue to support Barack Obama even if he were to lead us into the depths of a North Korea-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Woody Allen wants Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years so that he can completely socialize America. The article published today, May 15, 2010, did not make it into any English-language paper.
The article quotes Allen as saying [first in Spanish, then in English from a trusted reader] –

“…it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”

Of course, this comes as a complete shock.
What is it with these leftist loons and their passion for socialist dictators?

Boy, is it ever a shocker that the mainstream media decided the American people didn’t need to know that one of the most famous actors and producers in Hollywood wants us to live in a socialist dictatorship under Barack Obama???

Just imagine for a second if a prominent conservative were to say that it would be nice if George Bush could have total dictatorial powers so that he could put the country into proper order. Oh, yeah, MSNBC wouldn’t bother to cover THAT little slip.

Clint Eastwood is a well-known Hollywood conservative. But you don’t see him out there saying, “Boy, thatJorge Rafael Videla Redondo sure put things right in Argentina. That’s what we need here.” But you’ve got all kinds of liberals, such as Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and Woody Allen’s fellow wooden-headed liberal Woody Harrelson talking up all the hip socialist dictators. And give me a nickel for every liberal who ever wore a Che Geuvera T-shirt.

Nazi stands for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.” The U.S.S.R. stood for “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” Virtually every single murderous dictatorial regime we have seen in the last 100 years been shoved down our throats by the political left.

Yet somehow it’s invariably been conservatives – who favor a limited government with limited and specifically enumerated powers – who are constantly branded as the “fascists” and “Nazis” – even when both came right from the demonic heart of the political left.

Liberals LOVE fascism. They love big totalitarian government. They want government running our lives. It’s just who they are.

“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Well, what SHOULD we think about Hugo Chavez? Let’s find out.

From May 2007:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan troops have seized an anti-government television channel’s broadcast equipment, the station said on Sunday, ahead of a controversial midnight EDT/0400 GMT takeover by President Hugo Chavez that will take the broadcaster off the air.

Chavez sparked international criticism with his decision to not renew RCTV’s license and to replace Venezuela’s most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his self-styled socialist revolution.

On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government “human rights” official and that we were being expelled from the country.

From July 2009 from the Human Rights Watch (which also includes numerous Venezuelan human rights violations):

According to the U.S. State Department and other official government sources, the Venezuelan government has been guilty of numerous human rights violations under Chavez’s rule.

“Politicization of the judiciary and official harassment of the political opposition and the media characterized the human rights situation during the year,” said the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights in Venezuela for 2008 that was released last month.

The report credits the Chavez regime with unlawful killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, discrimination based on political grounds, widespread corruption at all levels of government, official intimidation and attacks on the independent media.

“According to HRW [Human Rights Watch], ‘Government officials have removed scores of detractors from the career civil service, purged dissidents employees from the national oil company, denied citizens access to social programs based on their political opinions, and denounced critics as subversives deserving of discriminatory treatment,” says the State Department report.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service also outlined human rights concerns in Chavez’s Venezuela.

“Under the populist rule of President Hugo Chavez … Venezuela has undergone enormous political changes, with a new constitution and unicameral legislature, and a new name for the country, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” states a Feb. 5, 2009 CRS report.

“U.S. officials and human rights organizations have expressed concerns about the deterioration of democratic institutions,” the report adds, “and threats to freedom of expression under President Chavez, who has survived several attempts to remove him from power.”

CHAVEZ: “Yes, we are indoctrinating the children from the first grade through college, every grade, private schools. The ideology of the revolution! The ideology of socialism! Our ideology.”

So Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug who is without any doubt suppressing freedom of speech and other human rights in his country. And if I may now refresh your memory about Sean Penn’s view of the man:

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

This one’s pretty easy. Sean Penn demonizes the press for smearing a dictator by calling him a “dictator.” And proceeds to argue that journalists who report the truth about Chavez be jailed.

Which is, of course, precisely what a dictator would do, isn’t it???

You see, Hugo Chavez is a dictator and thug; but he is a LEFTWING dictator and thug (just as most dictatorial thugs almost always are).

Let’s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the father of the progressive movement. In his unintentionally chilling essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson wrote:

The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much – everything – for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question as to the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them? He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates… It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.

On Wilson’s elitist view, American citizens truly ARE as clay. They are incapable of understanding anything remotely complex. And therefore the half-truths (which very often amount to whole lies) of the skillful demagogue become justified:

only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses; they must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.

And how did the father of the progressive movement – who viewed men as uncomprehending clay waiting to be shaped by the half-truths of the skillful demagogue – view the Constitution? Wilson wrote:

Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws

And uncomprehending clay men do not particularly deserve the inalienable rights bestowed upon them by a Constitution which itself is of little actual value. Thus the father of the progressive movement wrote:

No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.

And what should be the limitations of power on the government Leviathan – which could easily be stripped of its limiting Constitution – over uncomprehending and infinitely malleable men of clay? In The State, Wilson said that:

“Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

Conservatives favor limited government with limited and well-defined powers. Which is the exact OPPOSITE of fascistic totalitarian governments. When you start demanding bigger and bigger and more activistic and socialist government, you begin meandering over to fascist land.

Thus you should understand why it shouldn’t be surprising that Sean Penn and Danny Glover should think this way about Hugo Chavez. Chavez is the Great Leader who shapes stupid clay men with his skillful demagoguery; and thus woe be unto any who seek to get in his way.

And, good news for progressives, the magnificent Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution is coming to America in the form of Barack Hussein Obama:

(CNSNews.com) – Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

[…]

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government– worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”

“Complaints,” of course, which bother genuine progressives such as Sean Penn and Obama’s diversity czar Mark Lloyd. Which is why they think that “complainers” should be thrown in jail.

It’s not that Sean Penn is stupid for his views. Sean Penn is accurately explaining his progressive philosophy. He is not a politician who needs your vote, so he can be honest. And as a multi-millionaire celebrity, he epitomizes the mindset of progressivism: that the peon clay masses are ignorant and need to be ruled over, and that they should surrender their wills and allow the government of their superiors to do whatever they think is best. And who better than an elitist Hollywood celebrity to explain why the more than 300 million Americans constituting the lower classes are like maggots crawling across the landscape, and that they should be compelled to shut up and do as their betters tell them?

So let us be rid of Sean Penn and introduce ourselves to the “wisdom” of Tom Hanks. Recently – in acquainting America with the 10 part HBO series on World War II he took part in – had this to say:

“Back in World War II,” he told Brinkley, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” In a separate interview, Hanks referred to the war in the Pacific as one of “racism and terror.”

Damn racist American bastards. They were called “the greatest generation”; the generation that rose up from the ashes of the Great Depression to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen. But you and Tom Hanks know the truth, don’t you: they were just a bunch of racists. The vicious cheap-shot sneak attack at Pearl Harbor didn’t have anything to do with our going to war against Japan. Heck, in the spirit of the modern “truthers” who claim that Bush bombed the World Trade Center, FDR probably sent in American planes painted to look like Japanese Zeroes.

Stupid unAmerican fool. We didn’t want to annihilate the Japanese “because they were different.” We were forced to annihilate them because they were utterly fanatic and refused to surrender. We were forced to annihilate them because they started a war of annihilation and wouldn’t stop. Tom Hanks is too ignorant and too much an ideologue to consider the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March, or the Banzai charges, or the first suicide bombers known as the Kamikaze. I’d like to see Tom Hanks take part in a movie about the monstrous and utterly despicable Unit 731.

If Tom Hanks wasn’t a complete moral idiot, he would simply realize that Japan attacked us without provocation with a vengeance, and the United States of America responded with a vengeance. Just as they would have done had their attackers had white skin and round eyes.

And when Tom Hanks asks, “Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” he is not content to label the greatest generation as a bunch of racist warmongers; no, he seeks to do the same thing to our great warriors who are protecting us today.

Why are we fighting against Islamic jihadism? Because they’re “different,” as Tom Hanks maintains? How about because they attacked us in vicious act of war that left 3,000 innocent civilians murdered? Maybe THAT had something to do with it?

Contrary to being “racists,” our soldiers today are operating with a level of restraint against an utterly despicable terrorist enemy – who hide among and prey upon their own civilian people – that is simply amazing to behold. Our soldiers as a matter of routine are the most enthusiastic back-patting cheerleaders of the courage and toughness they are beginning to see in their Afghani and Iraqi counterparts.

Tom Hanks, like Sean Penn, see only ugliness in America and Americans, and only beauty in the totalitarian regimes of brutal dictators.